It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/24/health/how-to-boost-metabolism-wellness/index.html

by paulpauper • 2 years ago

103 120 2 years ago

cnn.com

baal80spam• 2 years ago

The answer is less about age and more about lifestyle.

onlyrealcuzzo• 2 years ago

That sounds pedantic.

It's not like people get older and decide to be less active.

Your muscles atrophy, and it's not as easy.

logicchains• 2 years ago

Your muscles atrophy if you don't use them. A 60 year old power lifter is stronger than a 30 year old who never lifts. On average people lose around 5% of their muscle mass per decade after 30; someone with twice as much muscle mass at 30 is still going to have more muscle mass at 60 than the person who started at 30 with half as much muscle mass.

cassianoleal• 2 years ago

Except for really old age, they mostly atrophy because of sedentarism. Even then, I've seen excellent climbers and alpinists past 70. Keep moving and your body will keep working.

latency-guy2• 2 years ago

The effect of atrophy, meaning non-use, is larger than the effect of aging, yes.

keybored• 2 years ago

I’m at the point where my peers complain about getting older.[1] And I’ve started wondering how much of that is really about age and how much is the cumulative effects of “lifestyle”. I mean if you sit in a chair for ten years for 12 hours a day you’ve probably become “too old” for doing cartwheels. But it could be reversed, maybe.

[1] Am I 25 or 50? Impossible to say in this climate of complaining.

silverquiet• 2 years ago

Yeah, late 30’s with a bad hip from childhood illness and I still managed to shed 50 pounds and get stronger than ever after being very sedentary for years. Diet and exercise and no drugs (I’d for sure take Ozempic if it was affordable too). Just me, but I spent way too much time thinking I was getting old and I was wrong.

Brybry• 2 years ago

That doesn't seem to be what the study they cited said though.

Basically the common model was that metabolism steadily declines with age (for adults). The study cited[1] says that doesn't match their data.

What they found was that metabolism was higher than expected for kids 1-20, stable for adults 21-60, and lower than expected for senior adults 60+. [2]

I don't want to say thresholds but you can look at the figures and see the rapid increase (0-1), decline (1-20), stability (21-60), and decline again (60+).

So age probably matters more to metabolism (than we thought) for some age groups but not for other age groups.

And I don't think there was really anything about lifestyle other than this bit:

consistent with the hypothesis that energy intake is coupled to expenditure

But obviously that won't help anyone lose weight (which is usually what people are complaining about when they complain about an assumed slowing metabolism) cause it's saying people take in more calories when they burn more calories.

[1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5017

[2] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/surprising-findings-abou...

cebert2• 2 years ago

I wonder if employers will be more receptive to regular breaks for knowledge workers who are mostly sedentary. One befits of working from home before being mandated back to the office was being able to go on a walk during lunch and less-critical meetings.

sroussey• 2 years ago

I always went on walks in the middle of the day at my office job. A quarter of the time I would bring a colleague, particularly from a different group but whom I would still interface with.

WheatMillington2• 2 years ago

Surely you can do this from the office? I do.

walthamstow• 2 years ago

What kind of office/work culture do you have where you can't go for a walk at lunch?

cebert2• 2 years ago

There’s managers who make assumptions if you’re not in your seat you’re not working, which is one of the reasons I liked WFH.

armchairhacker• 2 years ago

Could you go for a walk during lunch in-office?

My understanding is, unless the employer is paying you during lunch, they can’t mandate what you do. The only problems are 1) it’s not good socially if everyone else is eating lunch and you’re doing something else, and 2) your employer may not give or allow a long break during work hours, but I don’t how common that is (or how it would be justified, considering you’re not working for less hours).

8f2ab37a-ed6c• 2 years ago

You see this often with middle class city people in their late 20s and 30s.

You go from being athletic in high school and walking all day in college to suddenly being in your prime dating age, regularly out eating and drinking with friends or dates, hitting 2-3 cocktails a few nights a week. You start investing more into your ultra-sedentary career, which you drive to, which constantly requires more of your time to get that next promotion. You are unable to have healthy home cooking, instead replacing it with restaurant work lunches and happy hours with your coworkers.

In addition, as you make more money, that enables even more convenience. Amazon delivers you products, no need to leave the house. Instacart delivers you groceries, no need to even go to the corner store. Doordash always at the ready to indulge every craving. Uber will happily save you every step you choose not to take.

All of that quickly adds up way before you even hit your 40s, and many will claim that it's their metabolism, when in reality it's 100% a result of a dramatic lifestyle change.

paulpauper5• 2 years ago

I don't think it's a s simple as inactivity. IF this were true, then being active would reverse the weight gains, but it does not, at least not for me and others. I was still as active in my 30s as I was in my late teens and 20s but still gained weight. Likewise, gyms are full of people in their 30s and 40s who are not losing weight despite regular attendance. Despite the popularity of fitness apps, people keep getting fatter. It is only GLP-1 drugs that has put some dent in obesity rates. I think metabolism or some other biological, non-environmental variable plays some role. Or some reduction of NEAT that cannot be explained by careers.

throwaway220328• 2 years ago

Counterpoint - everyone I know who counts calories is able to either lose or gain weight roughly according to their plan.

This is borne out in essentially every sport which has weight classes at both the amateur and professional level.

Part of becoming healthy is calibrating yourself against other healthy individuals. No, not genetic freaks, just that neighbour who actually looks after themselves.

Macha• 2 years ago

As a counter-anecdote, I dramatically increased my exercise at 29, and reversed the weight gain I'd had slowly creeping over my 20s, and now in my 30s am at my lowest weight ans best physical shape since at least my mid-teens, possibly ever.

meindnoch2• 2 years ago

Likewise, gyms are full of people in their 30s and 40s who are not losing weight despite regular attendance.

Because they do shit exercises, then drive home, gorge on high-carb trash, and sit on their asses until their next gym appointment.

pfannkuchen• 2 years ago

Gym != being active throughout the day

lumb63• 2 years ago

It is asymmetrically difficult to lose weight compared to gaining weight. The body wants to maintain homeostasis, but tries way harder when it perceives the threat to be starvation. This makes a lot of sense considering historically that conserving energy rather than expending it would probably have been a massive survival advantage.

As an example, say we are discussing someone whose average energy expenditure is 3000 kcal a day and they eat that much currently. Let’s say they start to exercise and their average expenditure rises to 3200 a day, and they start to diet, so their intake falls to 2500. The body wants to minimize that 700 kcal caloric deficit to maintain homeostasis. The person will lose weight, but by the time they’re down, say, 10 lbs, a normal person 10 lbs lighter than they started would expend maybe 2900 kcal, but they’ll be expending 2800, since their body will start to downregulate processes that expend energy to minimize the deficit. This is why when people are losing weight they might feel cold (thermogenesis has decreased), tired (mental processing has decreased), or any other number of negative effects. It’s the body going into self-defense mode.

Another factor is fat. Sadly, as weight is gained, fat cells grow, and split when they get too big. When weight is lost, they shrink, but they never re-combine. Fat is an endocrine tissue that releases numerous hormones that regulate energy balance, appetite, etc. This means that people who previously had more fat will never (without medical interventions) be “the same” as someone who is the same weight, but never carried extra fat to begin with.

This might sound like “why bother trying when there are so many things stacked against you?” but I couldn’t disagree more. Despite the propaganda masquerading as science that says “diet and exercise don’t work”, they do. Nobody is immune to the laws of thermodynamics - if more energy is consumed than is expended, weight gain results, and if more is expended than is consumed, weight loss results. The main reason all these studies are able to say “diet and exercise are a bust” is because people don’t maintain the lifestyle that reduced their weight to begin with, and usually return to familiar habits.

Luckily, our habits are mutable, and just like our body can play tricks like making us more hungry when losing weight, we can fight back if we know what we are up against. For example, caffeine is a commonly consumed substance that suppresses appetite. Staying busy rather than being idle also suppresses appetite. Not having junk food in your house/office/etc. reduces temptations to help aid healthy decisions. Having healthy food available and prepared makes making healthy decisions easier. Scheduling diet breaks or planning free meals (and calling them free meals, not cheat meals) improve diet adherence.

In my opinion, the way to sustainable weight loss is slight modifications to the environment and behaviors to nudge the system in the desired direction. Our culture is too focused on motivation and discipline and toughing out situations no matter what to achieve our ends. Meanwhile tiny differences compound and do not feel like an immense burden. It’s also worth mentioning the power of a self-fulfilling prophecy: have you ever known anyone who lost weight via diet and exercise, and said it is impossible to lose weight via diet and exercise? On the flip side of the same coin, there are a lot of people who think diet and exercise will not cause weight loss, and they’re disproportionately overweight. Believing something is possible is nearly always a precondition for achieving it. Thoughts become things.

Best of luck on your weight loss journey. You can do it.

tekla• 2 years ago

Nope, people eat too much first, and secondly don't move around enough.

pitdicker• 2 years ago

On average man burns ca. 2500 kcal per day, mostly in rest. One hour of reasonably intensive cardio burns 500~600 kcal. If you have two such workouts a week it comes down to an increased energy use of 2*600/(7*2500) = 7%. Or a large meal. Just looking at the numbers it seems spending some time at the gym is not going to do much for loosing weight. Or said differently: eating 7% less is easier.

Of course cardio and strength training are useful for building/preserving muscle mass and general fitness. But for weight loss looking at food seems more effective.

nrdxp• 2 years ago

A lot of people put minimal possible effort in at the gym or other kinds of exercising.

I often see people "jogging" that are basically just walking with a bit of a skip, for example.

I believe this is correlated with diet, which most people think is just nutrition, but it's a lot more complex now. There are petrochemicals and toxins in basically everything, avoiding them is expensive and incredibly difficult and you will still inevitably be exposed. There are many of these chemicals that have been shown to have a direct correlation to slow metabolism, so it can make it seem to make everything more difficult if you are consuming large quantities of say, glyphosate.

Most people also don't realize that the bioavailability of food is important. Probiotics, enzymes, etc are usually completely dead or stripped by the time they reach your mouth after the highly processed pipeline.

Another note, there are literally thousands of micronutrients that we barely know anything, so that's also another variable. This is also just not looked at often, so you have to actually know to look to even understand their are natural compounds that may be useful, and then you have to deal with the quality control problem in the industry, and find a reliable, preferably third party tested supplier.

And also just discipline, which is harder when you don't have good nutrition, or your body is constantly processing mass amounts of toxic material. It also just requires willpower though, and applying it will build will to wade through the complex landscape of not poisoning yourself constantly. If you want to get ahead, you are gonna have to push yourself to an uncomfortable position.

Most folks would rather walk for 2 hours than do sprints for 5 minutes, even the the later has been shown to have significantly more effect on your metabolism, and requires much less time.

So in a way I agree, it's not as simple as just activity, it is moreso intentional activity at a level that is just above your comfort zone enough to make consistent progress, and hopefully you can do that without constantly consuming mass amounts of toxins that makes that whole process harder.

mint27• 2 years ago

2 to 3 hours in a gym, (especially casual weights) does not even come close to scratching the surface of all the reduced activity that comes with office jobs, commutes and screen oriented amusement.

Zambyte• 2 years ago

In a sense I am thankful I graduated into the covid lockdowns. It made this dramatic change obvious to me, and I made a similarly dramatic change in my diet. I went from literally having a buffet every meal in college to having a cup of coffee for breakfast, and what I would consider a normal sized meal for dinner. I realized after about 2 years of this that I was borderline under-weight, so I decided to start eating more. It was a struggle to gain weight, but now I am at a much healthier weight.

My extended family does not understand how I have not been gaining weight while I work from home. The truth is I simply do not eat more than I need to.

jrs235• 2 years ago

I eat when I'm hungry, not when a clock says I should.

Edit: My family doesn't understand why I haven't gotten the family beer belly most males in my family and extended family have.

iseletsk• 2 years ago

you are still young. Let's see how it works for you once you are 35+

throwaway220328• 2 years ago

Completely agree with this.

I'm fitter (can run further, lift more, more aesthetic figure) than I was in my late teens / early twenties and it was all down to one decision -

I stopped prioritising maximum income and started prioritising fitness and diet.

Not everyone wants to do that, and with pre existing health and lifestyle choices it can be much more challenging for some than for others.

But it's there as a choice, it's possible, and it's a hell of a lot easier than it seems once you start to see the results.

monero-xmr8• 2 years ago

You don’t have to stop maximizing income in order to get fit and healthy. I schedule time to work out in my calendar. My wife and I prioritize workouts as necessary time. You can eat at a restaurant and order healthy options and drink water.

People who blame their work for being unhealthy are making excuses. I’ve worked 60 - 70 hours a week for 2 decades and I’m in excellent physical condition.

dukeyukey3• 2 years ago

I dunno about this - at least here in the UK, London (jam-packed with that demographic, including me and most of my friends) is the fittest, least overweight part of the country, with among the highest life expectancy.

pseudocomposer• 2 years ago

Do you and your friends in London all drive to work? Or do you walk/metro?

The lifestyle shift the grandparent poster was referring to is typical of suburban and rural areas, but not really urban areas. I suspect people in more rural parts of the UK are very different from your London cohort.

lotsoweiners2• 2 years ago

Your version is a little low on the drinking calories in my opinion. I was skinny as a rail until my wife and I got together when I was 23 and started going to reverse happy hour at TGIFridays, Applebees, etc pretty much every night. Add drinking roughly another six pack most nights after the reverse happy hour along with smoking weed + more munchies and I never had a chance no matter how much exercise I did. I probably put on around 30-40 lbs in my first year of that lifestyle.

xenospn3• 2 years ago

Six beers AFTER happy hour?

xenospn3• 2 years ago

“People in Europe metabolize differently, that’s why they’re so skinny”

lapcat• 2 years ago

(2021)

somenameforme• 2 years ago

The article failed to mention another huge benefit of protein - it makes you feel full for longer. Eating 2000 calories of carbs is super easy. Eating 2000 calories of chicken breast is painfully hard.

euroderf• 2 years ago

2000 calories of protein def fends off hunger.

If I know I'm going to be traveling all day, I load up on eggs for breakfast. It beats getting ripped off for crappy snacks at travel waypoints.

fsckboy• 2 years ago

whole eggs have substantial fat, as a confounding factor in your analysis

csa2• 2 years ago

Eating 2000 calories of carbs is super easy.

Is it? That’s about 10 cups of cooked plain boiled rice.

I think carbs only hit the “easy to hit 2k” mark when it’s sugar (maybe?) or when it’s added with fat, especially fried foods.

Eating 2000 calories of chicken breast is painfully hard.

I think this is about 7 cups of boiled, skinless breast of chicken.

I think this gets back to fat, or lack thereof.

For me personally, lean proteins don’t really fill me up — I have knocked back a pound of chicken breast with fresh veggies and I was hungry a few hours later. It’s mainly fats that do the trick for me for feeling sated — nuts, fat in meat, cheese, oil (esp. for roasting vegetables), etc.

Detrytus• 2 years ago

> Eating 2000 calories of carbs is super easy.
Is it? That’s about 10 cups of cooked plain boiled rice.

Or two large milkshakes [1], or about 7 doughnuts or chocolate bars, such as Mars or Snickers, or about 500g of any random chocolate candies.

[1] https://www.mcdonalds.com/ca/en-ca/product/triple-thick-milk...

hn_throwaway_992• 2 years ago

I do wonder if this study is confusing, at some level, cause and effect. Yes, I definitely understand the argument that people blame things on "my slowing metabolism", but then don't seem to notice that the requirements of middle age (e.g. full time job and especially folks with kids) can make it harder to get exercise.

At the same time, I don't have kids, and while I've stayed relatively active into middle age I've definitely noticed that it takes me much longer to recover after strenuous exercise than it did when I was younger. And so it's simply harder to stay as active, because my body is basically telling me "stop!" more often. It's already well documented that testosterone levels in men begin to decline starting in your thirties at about 1% a year, so I think skepticism is in order if researchers would claim that this reduction in testosterone levels would have no impact on activity level and metabolic rate.

331c8c713• 2 years ago

takes me much longer to recover after strenuous exercise than it did when I was younger

The biggest difference I feel is proclivity to (small but reoccurring) injuries in certain weak spots...

BeetleB2• 2 years ago

This is from 2021 and was widely reported at the time.

I see a lot of know-it-all comments, but the reality is they do not yet know why people gain weight in their middle age. No - the data doesn't show that it's merely due to being sedentary or changing diets.

monero-xmr8• 2 years ago

If you want to reduce weight, then lower your caloric intake. You don’t even need to workout. Just measure your calories and keep decreasing them until the weight falls off.

If you want to add in exercise, that’s great too, and then you can eat more calories. But if you studiously count calories and reduce them, you will lose weight - it’s guaranteed.

If I put you on a desert island and starved you, you would lose weight. It’s the same principle. Trying to imagine that there is a mystery here to explain weight gain is a coping mechanism. There is no mystery.

331c8c713• 2 years ago

The problem with losing weight without exercising is that it's not only fat but also muscles that are lost.

hn_throwaway_992• 2 years ago

It's not a mystery, but it also sort of pretends that humans are robots. That is, the human body has developed homeostatic mechanisms over billions of years, and a big part of that is that if your body thinks it's starving, it will try its hardest to (a) make you hungry so that you will do whatever you can to eat more, and (b) slow your metabolic rate so you don't die.

WalterBright• 2 years ago

The most productive way to lose weight is to cut out the soda, juice, cookies, ice cream, donuts, Captain Crunch, pie, cake, candy bars, pastries, etc.

Not the easiest thing to do, I know.

BeetleB2• 2 years ago

The mystery isn't how to lose weight but why weight increases despite no change in activity and diet.

Rury• 2 years ago

Evidence suggests it's because lipid turnover decreases with age: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190909193211.h...

wolverine876• 2 years ago

The paper in Science:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5017

inetsee• 2 years ago

If it is true that frequent, brief, moderately intense exercise is that beneficial, I can see several ways that office workers can fit that into their workday.

If you work in a multi-floor office building: when going to the restroom, walk up stairs to a restroom on a floor above the one you work on; if you go out for lunch, walk to lunch, then walk up the stairs when you get back; if you are going to a meeting, leave you desk a couple of minutes early and walk up and down the stairs before going to the meeting room.

All of these ideas have something in common: walking up stairs is as close to HIIT that most people get during their day.

nradov3• 2 years ago

A lot of people claim they have trouble losing weight because of a "slow metabolism". In most cases their metabolism is normal and they haven't even had a resting metabolic rate (RMR) test. Those tests are easy, inexpensive, and non-invasive. It's worth getting one just to understand your baseline energy expenditure.

Fire-Dragon-DoL• 2 years ago

I just eat too much. But I am always hungry too.

datatrashfire• 2 years ago

Best way to stay in shape in my opinion is to play a sport, especially in some sort of league/club.

If you genuinely enjoy playing, it doesn't feel like a chore! Now into my mid 30s, I do not regularly go to the gym, I do not have any special dietary habits, and I weigh the same as 18.

It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

Related Stories